Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you believe the 2nd Amendment "protects you from tyranny", aren't you really advocating killing police officers? Asassinating politicians and judges? Shooting government employees?
What separates you from the murderous mob? Criminal elements that believe in "might makes right"? Are you essentially agreeing with Chairman Mao that history comes from the barrel of a gun?
People being people. Of course they think they are noble and just and representing the true intentions of the founding fathers.... They simply don't want to acknowledge the irony of the power of the gun and how it can work both ways to cause and stop tyranny.
If you believe the 2nd Amendment "protects you from tyranny", aren't you really advocating killing police officers? Asassinating politicians and judges? Shooting government employees? What separates you from the murderous mob?
Nothing. You've hit the nail on the head, and underscored that the most significant danger involved in this scenario are arrogant, gun-toting "selfists", for lack of a better term.
While I think liberal gun laws do more bad than good, in this case i would think a wide gun-ownership among the public makes it harder for a government to tyrranise the public.
while a government may have attackdrones, etc, they are still dependent on the rest of their country to work somewhat well in order to have something meaningful to rule over...
so hypothetically;
Say a president revokes your second amendment, ban all guns and starts making hostile take-overs of companies etc, making any personal ambition among the citizens practically redundant, then strip away a bunch of other rights that are necessary for a democracy, what do you have left?
my answer would be: another putin-style russia.
Now putins power over russia may be a lot more absolute than Obamas power over USA, but which one would you rather trade places with?
the president of the United states or russia?
....and quoting a bunch of dead guys helps you how? Respectable dead guys, but nevertheless dead. Seems you are holding on to the past.
The US Constitution is a pretty solid document. It's time that our lawmakers and politicians get back to upholding it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
So you think we still live in the 18th century too?
I love this country and the ability to exercise my 1st amendment right.....
So you think the 2nd amendment is more important than the 1st as well..... I guess it's less fun to hear ideas that are different than yours when you can just shoot them eh?
Without the 2nd amendment your 1st amendment rights are irrelevant. What makes you think that if they did away with the 2nd amendment that you'd necessarily be able to exercise your right to free speech?
If you believe the 2nd Amendment "protects you from tyranny", aren't you really advocating killing police officers? Asassinating politicians and judges? Shooting government employees?
What separates you from the murderous mob? Criminal elements that believe in "might makes right"? Are you essentially agreeing with Chairman Mao that history comes from the barrel of a gun?
Absolutely, if they become tyrants.
If Jews had access to weapons during WWII, should they have refrained from stopping their own slaughter just because they would have been attacking police officers and govt employees? Should North Koreans, in the event they gain access to weapons, not free themselves from torture, imprisonment and starvation just because they will be attacking politicians and judges?
Not recognizing tyrants is as dangerous as refusing to stop them.
If you believe the 2nd Amendment "protects you from tyranny", aren't you really advocating killing police officers? Asassinating politicians and judges? Shooting government employees?
What separates you from the murderous mob? Criminal elements that believe in "might makes right"? Are you essentially agreeing with Chairman Mao that history comes from the barrel of a gun?
Actually, you see in your history books what it leads to. Not always a criminal mob, but an orderly and organized civil uprising just like how the American revolutionaries did it. Their model is a model in how it's done.
It makes one wonder, if a person became President who happened to be elected at the same time the majority of Congress agreed with him and the appointments to SCOTUS allowed for a like minded majority and
they decided, collectively that Gays were an abomination of mankind and therefore unlawful, that abortion was simply messy and therefore illegal, that free speech was simply unnecessary since disagreement was unacceptable, and that the 21st Century needed not a free society since free people seem to do such bad things...
how fast would the liberals run to grab a gun in defense of the Constitution?
Most would go to that little place they are disgusted to acknowledge they have to dig out that handgun they bought but never told anyone they have, claim to be protectors of free speech and rush the towers screaming give me liberty or give me death.
If you believe the 2nd Amendment "protects you from tyranny", aren't you really advocating killing police officers? Asassinating politicians and judges? Shooting government employees?
What separates you from the murderous mob? Criminal elements that believe in "might makes right"? Are you essentially agreeing with Chairman Mao that history comes from the barrel of a gun?
That's a pretty big illogical leap you've made there. Are you saying that all police officers, politicians and judges are tyrants? I don't believe that to be the case by any means, do you?
Hey DV1033, what amendment guarantees free speech? Clue. It is not the 1st Amendment.
The 1st Amendment provides for the right, the 2nd guarantees that right exists.
The more you try to convince yourself the more you convince others; of the need for the Constitution as written, not as you see it.
No, the second doesnt guarantee the right to free speech exists. The first amendment does provide that. Without any of the amendments we wouldn't have the country we have today.
The second amendment is simple to understand. The founding fathers feared a large standing military. They foresaw a civilian army to protect us, because standing armys, to quote madison, would not long be a friend to freedom and liberty.
Shays rebellion shows the failure of civilian uprisings against any standing army in this country.
All of that changed with the invention of repeating fire weapons, artillery, and newer weapons like missiles and aircraft. The founding fathers never invisioned that.
Republicans need to reconcile their love of the military industrial complex, with their love of the second amendment. We don't need both. That was the point of the founders. They would be rolling in their graves with the military size and scope we have today
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
